Blog: Chand Counselling, East London

Tuesday 19 December 2017

CPD Saturday 3.3.17 : Reflect, Encounter, Muse

What

This workshop will be an opportunity to meet with other practitioners from the helping professions - including but not limited to counsellors and psychotherapists - in order to reflect, encounter, muse.. I.e. To develop personally and professionally. I imagine content would include - for example - personal experience, theory, ethics, practice (and possibly live practice if wanted).

The day is an additional opportunity for growth; it is not a substitute for supervision. As I am offering this from my home, I can accommodate up to five participants excluding myself. If there is appetite, there is the possibility for a similar day to run more often.

Why

Working as a therapist, supervisor, and facilitator is my vocation! From me you may expect this passion, as well my careful attention throughout. My belief in the value of such a group is strengthened through experience as both a participant and facilitator. As such, I will also bring my confidence and experience in groups; hopefully leaving you freer to be with others on the day.

The day will run from 10am to 4pm and will cost £80 if booked before 15.2.18; £100 thereafter. Please contact me to discuss a concession. The fee includes home-made organic vegetarian soup and bread for lunch.

Location & Accessibility

My home in Aldgate East, London E1 (Central London). Walking, this takes a minute from Aldgate East tube station (exit 4) or 10/15 minutes from Liverpool Street station. I am on the first floor and there is a lift; regrettably there is no wheelchair access. Full address given upon booking.

Booking

Please contact me at rakhi@chandcounselling.co.uk or call me on 0044(0)7802510491.

Tuesday 3 October 2017

Film Review: Mad to be Normal (2017). Directed by Robert Mullan

Madness: a sane response to an insane world? The words give me a shiver; I should announce
my bias now. In favour. As a psychotherapist I’m stretched and challenged further by
Mullan’s work in terms of how to be with people that are pretty mentally unwell.

The eminent Scottish psychiatrist at the centre of the film is R.D. Laing. In the mid1960s he
lived – to the limit – his belief that what people with schizophrenia or experiencing psychosis
need is understanding (and possibly some LSD – see below). For him their communications
are understandable, should we take the trouble to try.

What's interesting about this as a work of art is its relevance to the era we live in: one of
divided views and related destruction… What happens if we do the unthinkable and try to
understand a scary, different 'other' seeming to speak a different language? Elizabeth Moss
(Laing's composite-fictional partner ‘Angie’ and part of the 'well' camp) and Olivia Poulet (a
'patient') have an exchange that is blow-your-mind beautiful: Poulet tenderly 'meets' Moss in
her vulnerability. The unwell tend to the well.

Timeless human struggles - relationships, power, love, hurt, fear – it's all there for the
relating. Both David Tennant (who plays Laing) and Elizabeth Moss do this earnestly and
beautifully.

I think it's safe to say, judging from his book titles, that Mullan had a particular interest in
Laing. And I’d say this is warranted; I don’t know of anyone as radical and popular (and
therefore influential) as Laing in the field in the last fifty years. Given this, Mullan’s
tempered approach to the character I applaud. Laing is portrayed unequivocally as a human
with all his own foibles and failings in relationships. Laing’s partner ‘Angie’ I believe is cast
to illustrate this. I might add that two people did kill themselves at Kingsley Hall and this is
not included in the film. Mullan does however take care to show when the approach hits a
limit; when a patient become a risk to others. What are the boundaries of empathy?

That is a question that I relate to in my current practice; it's a film that makes me think.
Excellent.

What pops almost immediately for me – even as a practitioner with already sympathetic
views – is that my empathy for people in extreme distress is stretched, as mentioned above.
So, I daresay Laing’s understanding takes a truckload of courage and humility. But with the
psychologist Carl Rogers - another renowned figure in the field of the last century - sitting on
my shoulder, I’m reminded not to be dogmatic about anything, including ‘recreational’ drug
use for mental distress. Rogers (1959) advocated a rejection of all forms of dogma in
advancing theory/practice for working with mental illness. Open mind, check.

I come to the conclusion that I need more Laing in my daily work – at least in terms of
empathy – the jury’s out on the LSD. Why don't I become less rigid, less assuming of
perceived professional norms and see if it leads to somewhere growthful for those who are
hurting? Chances are this will be a unique experience for them in a dark, long, often cold
journey of illness. And I have my supervisor (compulsory in the UK) and myself to check me.

Laing talked about empathy as an agent of change in and of itself. Some fifty years on,
Professor Stephen Joseph at the University of Nottingham in the UK, seems to be arguing
similarly in his article, 'Rethinking Human Suffering' (2017). The film is clearly topical. Even
the milder aspects of Laing's approach (such as the centrality of empathy rather than the
dimension of patients living with doctors) are still revolutionary. This links to the above; that
there has been no comparable figure in the field of psychiatry or psychotherapy since Laing.

The film is a sensual, seductive one. Almost entirely dimly lit, with interludes of music
without dialogue, dancing and slow frames, it's a treat for the senses. The occasional distorted
shot further adds to the dreamlike quality. And, being transported to another dimension of
feeling in this way echoes Laing’s fundamental sentiment: fluid boundaries are not
necessarily to be decried.

Anything off about the film? I don’t think there was any value added for Kingsley Hall – the
residence where Laing lived with his patients – to be set in the US rather than the UK reality
(East London). I also wonder if any real (political?) ambitions are thwarted in that most of the
audience may be practitioners like me who are already engaged in this debate. Any
implications of the film may be further hampered by the fact that the film was physically hard
to access! An art-house film being sought out by an already left-leaning audience? I would
welcome hearing from others with a different view (channelling my inner
Laing).